It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russia 'to renew offer to supply S-300s to Iran'

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Putin wasted absolutely no time in consolidating his political coup, it seems. He gave Obama the carrot....peace...and now? Well, this sounds like the stick. I'm not used to seeing the US on this side of the equation. It's a new experience.


AFP - Russian President Vladimir Putin will offer to supply Iran S-300 air defence missile systems as well as build a second reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, the Kommersant business daily reported Wednesday.

Putin will renew an old offer to supply Iran with five of the sophisticated ground-to-air missile systems at a meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rowhani on Friday, Kommersant said, quoting a souce close to the Kremlin


That will nicely cover the source and number of what Iran already has from Belarus and the Chinese version of the 300's. Add to that. Iran's domestic arms industry has been producing a knock-off as well. This gives them the real thing and a modern version of it. Dandy........ We should have known peace came with a price. Nothing from Russia is ever free.


The source also said that Putin was ready to sign a deal with Iran on building a second reactor for the Bushehr nuclear plant.

The source said the deal was not "particularly profitable from an economic point of view, but was rather political."
Source

Talk about a lot changing in less than a week for position and power. I'm not sure Obama even gave thought to the fact it COULD change that fast and this completely. In other statements out of Russia today, they also state that United States transit permissions into Afghanistan may be modified as needed, if we strike Syria anyway.

I.E...... Attack Syria, and we can cut you off from your Afghan forces at will. That is basically the message I take from that. Another bad bad thing about Afghanistan. It puts us in a position of literally having to cater to Putin just to maintain flight corridor access to our own troops. At least one of the major access routes. The other is Pakistan of course, and they have the predictable temperament of a toddler at times.

So to recap, We have S-300/PMU's being sent to Iran now. We have a second reactor on offer to Iran for their nuclear power plant on the Persian Gulf and I can imagine Putin smiling like the Cat with the Canary feather on his lip, while he counts his victory here. (sigh)

I'd ask if it could get worse? ...then I look at what day it is...and catch that thought before it passes my lips. Even said to myself.




posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 05:37 AM
link   
I think he should make them pay for the S-300's, and give them S-400's as a surprise bonus for good international behavior. Because Iran has attacked no one, and kept their world policing to 0.

Send the S-300's to Syria.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 

You know? I actually agree with you here and I know I'll make no friends here by saying it...but so be it. I live to tilt at windmills sometimes. lol...

S-400's to Iran in quantity would pretty well make game-set and match with a BIG check-mate for Obama. Outright. It's already a logistical nightmare to even get to Iran. Not the gulf...of course. That's petty and not important though. The Gulf is only one side of Iran and the least important one for their own sake. It's beyond conventional aircraft range in almost all cases...without tankers over the interior of Iran...to even GET to Tehran from the Gulf end of things. So.. throw in a latest/greatest top of the line air-defense net?

Obama has shown he won't commit forces at anything like a level respecting an enemy's capability. He'd have to then. Even our own Pilots, I believe, would be tempted to balk if sent into THAT kind of trap without the military requirements for support and backing.

Indeed... Send 400's to Iran and this sucker is over but for the explanations of why, IMO. Not a bad outcome, if it leaves little choice but peace in the end. You're also right in saying that Iran, as a nation, has not attacked anyone. They play a mean game of proxy war through Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, but then, so do most of the nations in that region to one group or another.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 


It is disturbing that in this day and age we still have so much focus on defense and war. I feel a lot of the problems in the world could be solved without the use of warfare. The amount we spend on war is astronomical. Maybe we should be focusing on reducing the disparity between rich and poor and looking after the planet for future generations.
Its like a game of chess being played by the banks, the world leaders and corporations. There are people at the end of this game of chess just like you and me that just want to be left in peace to have their lives.
The world leaders have gone rogue. Arming and invading countries will not help. Why can they not sit around a table and sort their differences out like humans..

sf)



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 


Perhaps if the leaders sat back and targeted EACH OTHER instead of sending our men and boys out to die in their place as proxy stand-ins, the leaders would feel a personal interest in seeing a peaceful outcome.

As it is now? Lets be honest. If Syria went totally bad and ..WORST WORST case...we lost all 5 Burke Destroyers to Yakhonts with the Nimitz being sunk in the exit to the Suez ...making a nice stopper to that choke point for a long time ....what would change in Obama's life? Personally? Well.. The White House might be a more unhappy place and more security for being a leader of a losing nation in a war....but would anything else personally change for him? Especially as a second term President? Not really... Same with McCain and the rest.

Their glory...everyone else's guts. I think that's the biggest issue. The leaders literally have no skin in the game and by mutually agreed rules (THOSE rules, they don't break..go figure) they don't target each other directly. If they did? Saddam could have been taken out on a Baghdad balcony weeks before the invasion, as he strutted around like a Peacock. Body doubles..they claimed...and we never SAW a single one that really existed. Some intelligence we have, huh?



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 


More and more it seems that every US president since Roosevelt(with the possible exception of Kennedy) has failed dramatically in reading Soviet/Russian intentions, they just can't seem to get a handle on the Russian character at all. It seemed blatantly obvious when Putin stepped in to back Syrian chemical weapons being held under international control that there would be a trade off somewhere, the smart money had to be on political manoeuvring in Iran.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   

TrueAmerican
I think he should make them pay for the S-300's, and give them S-400's as a surprise bonus for good international behavior. Because Iran has attacked no one, and kept their world policing to 0.

Send the S-300's to Syria.


Thank you for that. We supply Israel with weapons so they don't get to supply their allies with weapons? I know it's an unknown but so is the US anymore, especially from their perspective. I wish they would just do away with it all but no one is stopping the manufacture of any of it so countries will attenpt to keep up. Especially counties that have been told they need to remain weaker than the US and Israel. Who here would want to feel vulnerable and know being weaker would make them dependent on others to protect them? The only country that concerns me right now in N Korea because of their leader. He is beyond being an odd ball.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   


(with the possible exception of Kennedy)


You obviously don't know presidential history all that well. Kennedy got worked over hard by Nikita Khrushchev. I don't think there has ever been a president that got played as hard as Kennedy did.

Not only did he lose Cuba but he had to give up his precious missiles in the East also. Kennedy actually had to call Eisenhower up and have the former president tell him how to get out of the mess he was in.

Did you know that Kennedy was about to authorize an invasion of Cuba to get the Soviet missiles before his brother talked him out of it?

Kennedy was a blithering idiot.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
The Russians goal is to make some money. The problem for the Russians is evertime the West attacks somebody using their weapons systems they get the crap beat out of them. Now they are hoping they have avoided an attack in Syria but, just in case they would want to move this stuff in case Syria gets it next. The thing is the air defense systems are designed to operate along with a supporting aircraft. Without that the best just become another target. Not that the Russian really as long as somebody is buying it. Of course the fact that they sell and keep offering to sell NATO these things would really annoy me if I was Iran, since enemy now knows more about your systems than you do. Then again all those Russia weapons being bought and given to the rebels do not seem to have effected Assad wanting more. Got to love the Russian they may no longer be a world power but they sure know how to make money off of other peoples war, most of the time selling to all sides.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 07:18 PM
link   

purplemer
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 


It is disturbing that in this day and age we still have so much focus on defense and war. I feel a lot of the problems in the world could be solved without the use of warfare. The amount we spend on war is astronomical. Maybe we should be focusing on reducing the disparity between rich and poor and looking after the planet for future generations.
Its like a game of chess being played by the banks, the world leaders and corporations. There are people at the end of this game of chess just like you and me that just want to be left in peace to have their lives.
The world leaders have gone rogue. Arming and invading countries will not help. Why can they not sit around a table and sort their differences out like humans..

sf)


I completely, completely agree. I can't add much, but I've S+F'd the thread. I just wanted to say that this is a good analogy of the world.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


I don't mean to argue anything here, but a valid question to your point. You make a decent one about the battlefield performance of Russian systems vs. American ones. It's been rather pathetic since the days of Vietnam.

That's the question tho...When was the last time mainline U.S. forces faced Russian equipment anywhere remotely close to the level they have domestically? Assad isn't on that high a favorite list...but he's still getting some awfully serious assistance. The 300 series isn't special. The earliest models would give our oldest aircraft a challenge ...maybe. It runs into very modern variants though, and there are Western analysis comparing them favorably with the current Patriot systems.....with a far more generous angle at a straight 90 degree launch, of course.

Then there are the 400's the Russians themselves had at Tartus (still do? base abandoned? lots of different stuff on that). I think even Zaphod might agree those would give all but the most advanced of our planes some serious pause to consider?



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 


Unless your a warmonger like mcain i dont see how its "worse" for america. Untill iran builds a bluewater navy then the usa safe. Plus they have the right to defensive weapons in case you know ? A large aggresive country trys to attack it on the whim of Isreal.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


I'm not disputing anything about Iran's right to as robust a military as their hearts desire. In fact, if they want to break themselves entirely and destroy their national treasury, as we have, I'd say...more power to 'em. Not with Nukes though, because those are contagious things. When one has them...all want them. Saudi outright said, in no uncertain terms last year, if Iran pops up for a seat in the Nuclear club, they won't be far behind to demand their chair too.

I honestly don't believe Iran is or ever has been making nuclear warheads though. I've written a couple lengthy and researched threads on that in the past for reasoning and basis. Personally, It looks to me like Iran IS the actual underdog anyway..and isn't that who America was supposed to be inclined to be on the side of? A whole world of Sunni is really anxious to see the Iranian Shia put to the pages of history and a back chapter of it, at that.

You'd think we would stay neutral to such a thing....not be so active to assist with it, huh? (It's been a fairly recent thing...last year or two..that I've realized the seriousness and enormity of that issue)



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Tinkerpeach
 



You obviously don't know presidential history all that well. Kennedy got worked over hard by Nikita Khrushchev. I don't think there has ever been a president that got played as hard as Kennedy did.


I couldn't help but reply on this....

Until recent years, it was true that a good many people saw things that way for how it all turned out. However, I cannot fathom how anyone could look back on it now, with what is now known from the Russian side of the situation back then, and not be very very thankful Kennedy and Khrushchev worked it out, however that came to happen.

Specifically I'm talking about the battlefield nukes the Russian commanders not only had in Cuba, but had been given battlefield level authority to use in case of attack. Our side had NO idea, of course, and assumed ..as history seems to read, that couldn't and wouldn't happen. It was going to happen....and some CIA we had..or have now for that matter. Omniscient my rabbits foot. lol...

One instant off....just one decision different...and through total ignorance (Maybe, like today in Syria... Hmmm) the majority of us wouldn't have been born, while those who were, probably wouldn't have been happy for the fact in the world they'd have had.



posted on Sep, 11 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Tinkerpeach

Kennedy was a blithering idiot.




He was such a idiot that they pulled out all the stops, and cashed in all their favors, to murder this man. Kennedy's only problem was in thinking that he really was the commander-in-chief and that he was running the show.
edit on 11-9-2013 by juspassinthru because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Tinkerpeach
 

What I was trying to convey was that Kennedy was able to read Khrushchev, he identified a premier who was a hot head, very clever, but a hothead all the same, with the peasant cunning inherent in so many Russians, he was able to call Khrushchev's bluff without backing him into a corner, that to me, was not the action of a "blithering idiot"



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 08:23 AM
link   
reply to post by wrabbit2000
 


My ownly problem with Iran not being part of the nuclear club is Isreal......

Because they have hundreds of the things I if I was Iran would want my own deterant otherwise whats the point of MAD ? Your enemy has them but you dont? Bad balance of power.

I dont think Iran haveing nukes is nessarly the awnser......I think the awnser is that Isreal is forced to have theres taken away!



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by crazyewok
 


That's the thing tho... Israel is literally unique in World history for a nation to be both a victim and aggressor at various points in QUITE the way they are. Never before have I known of a nation that literally sat atop and among what the 'enemy' most NEEDS taken in one piece and as close to 100% untouched and unmarked as humanly possible. So...nukes against Israel aren't a deterrent. Chemical weapons were..because even the bad ones disperse and leave an area safe to reenter and reoccupy (in most cases) in short order. I.E.... The Temple Mount and Greater Jerusalem wouldn't be obliterated.

You think Iran has problems with the Sunnis and greater Islam now?? lol.... See the Ayatollah order what totally destroys everything sacred to Islam in Judea. Oh...I'd measure the lifespan of everyone in Qom in days, not weeks..and their own people would do the deed. Israel is SO SMALL....there is no way to use nukes where it mattered at all and NOT have that outcome. It's one of the largest reasons I've always said Iran isn't making warheads. It would be a threat so absurd to use, it's worthless to them......and unlike some madmen like Saddam? Iranians are cold, calculating and intelligent. They'd know that.
edit on 12-9-2013 by wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   

wrabbit2000
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 

You know? I actually agree with you here and I know I'll make no friends here by saying it...but so be it. I live to tilt at windmills sometimes. lol...

S-400's to Iran in quantity would pretty well make game-set and match with a BIG check-mate for Obama. Outright. It's already a logistical nightmare to even get to Iran. Not the gulf...of course. That's petty and not important though. The Gulf is only one side of Iran and the least important one for their own sake. It's beyond conventional aircraft range in almost all cases...without tankers over the interior of Iran...to even GET to Tehran from the Gulf end of things. So.. throw in a latest/greatest top of the line air-defense net?

Obama has shown he won't commit forces at anything like a level respecting an enemy's capability. He'd have to then. Even our own Pilots, I believe, would be tempted to balk if sent into THAT kind of trap without the military requirements for support and backing.

Indeed... Send 400's to Iran and this sucker is over but for the explanations of why, IMO. Not a bad outcome, if it leaves little choice but peace in the end. You're also right in saying that Iran, as a nation, has not attacked anyone. They play a mean game of proxy war through Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, but then, so do most of the nations in that region to one group or another.

in Libya they sent in old aircraft first.maybe they thought better to lose them than lose modern ones.
pilots did not duck out



posted on Sep, 12 2013 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by r0nsix
 


Yup...and Libya had nothing like what Russia can supply Syria..if they haven't already done so. There is simply no real comparison at all. Libya, since they gave up WMD in 2004, was getting it's military hardware from Great Britain and the European Union. As cheesy as I think it may have been to be arming the man up just to murder him? (That brings all new meaning to a pump and dump profit scam, eh??), they still weren't arming Libya with a personal interest in seeing it WIN anything. They just wanted the profits to bank.

Russia is arming and supporting Syria with a very direct purpose. To defend against and repel United States combat systems. No one else's. Ours. Specifically, and by individual system. I think Russia is dying to see just how some of their gear may match up ..if given the chance. Regardless though, Libya used almost none of what it had anyway. I think we have almost 0 chance of Assad being so kind and cooperative to losing his nation and, eventually, life.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join